Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

a look at our 19 udfas


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Navy_football said:

Yep. And I hate that we'll go with a default starter at Safety and possibly at ILB. I would have much rather doubled down on Safeties in the 4th and had a plan going forward. Feels like they're just hoping it works itself out. 

I'm actually a fan of drafting a RB in the 4th. I'm not schooled enough on day 3 RB's to argue whether there was a better option available, but I like what I've seen about Etienne so far. I think he beats out Blackshear for RB3, but is mainly a safety net for 2026.

Chuba is locked in long term on his hard-earned big boy contract.

Dowdle is coming off a 1,000 yard season and will be looking to prove it wasn't a fluke. It it was, he's a RB2 somewhere (maybe here??). It it wasn't a fluke, he'll get a big-boy contract elsewhere.

Brookes... Who TF knows?!?! Even if he does come back, he's 2 years removed from play time. Etienne and he can fight for RB2, the other defaults to RB3. Both will be playing on cheap rookie contracts.

Blackshear is meh.

Edited by shaqattaq
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Navy_football said:

Yep. And I hate that we'll go with a default starter at Safety and possibly at ILB. I would have much rather doubled down on Safeties in the 4th and had a plan going forward. Feels like they're just hoping it works itself out. 

And, honestly, there's only so much you can attempt to do in the draft. And every draft pick is a roll of the dice.

But that's where grabbing a ton of UDFAs, and targeting the best, makes a big difference. Sure, their individual chances of getting a hit here is less, but that shotgun pattern might just hit something. 

Right now, we need bulk, partly to rebuild and partly to dilute the deep level of stank that has developed on this team in the last six years. If we're going to rebuild a culture built around culture, accountability and winning, then these UDFAs we bring in each season have to be the wash water that gets out that leftover dirt. 

Canales seems to be a smart, culture-first, build up the good ones kind of guy. I like that and I hope he can keep it going here. But he was working against a locker room that had been taught to lose and taught to distrust or ignore coaches. He's got his work cut out for him, still. He does seem to have it moving in the right direction and that's something I was pretty amazed with by the end of last season.

 

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Khyber53 said:

And, honestly, there's only so much you can attempt to do in the draft. And every draft pick is a roll of the dice.

But that's where grabbing a ton of UDFAs, and targeting the best, makes a big difference. Sure, their individual chances of getting a hit here is less, but that shotgun pattern might just hit something. 

Right now, we need bulk, partly to rebuild and partly to dilute the deep level of stank that has developed on this team in the last six years. If we're going to rebuild a culture built around culture, accountability and winning, then these UDFAs we bring in each season have to be the wash water that gets out that leftover dirt. 

Canales seems to be a smart, culture-first, build up the good ones kind of guy. I like that and I hope he can keep it going here. But he was working against a locker room that had been taught to lose and taught to distrust or ignore coaches. He's got his work cut out for him, still. He does seem to have it moving in the right direction and that's something I was pretty amazed with by the end of last season.

 

No issues drafting a RB in the 4th that'll be slated as your 3rd down specialist, or special team returner. I just thought that Billy Bowman and/or Malachi Moore would have helped the team more. But who knows, Etienne could be our Bucky. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

No issues drafting a RB in the 4th that'll be slated as your 3rd down specialist, or special team returner. I just thought that Billy Bowman and/or Malachi Moore would have helped the team more. But who knows, Etienne could be our Bucky. 

No one knows what he will be yet. We won't until he takes the field. Many times.

Same with all the rest, from Tet on down to Moose 3.

It's kind of exciting, the anticipation and all. But it has been disappointing too many times recently for me to get too over the moon about any of it.

Willy Wonka Suspense GIF

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

No issues drafting a RB in the 4th that'll be slated as your 3rd down specialist, or special team returner. I just thought that Billy Bowman and/or Malachi Moore would have helped the team more. But who knows, Etienne could be our Bucky. 

He could wash out of the league in 2 years or be the next Darren Sproles.  Or anything in between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Not one single pick that is asking me why we drafted a guy in the first place. It was a guy we needed and/or a guy that had certain traits making them stand out. Best of all, I feel everyone we drafted are capable of stepping onto the field this year and have a meaningful role (even Kuwatch on special teams). Obviously, nothing is guaranteed but I'm not seeing any huge flags on guys because they're risky projects or massive overreaches.
    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...